Selleck v. Tallman
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Rock county: John R. Bennett, Circuit Judge. Action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received by plaintiff by reason of a defective sidewalk in the defendant city. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMaesitall, J.
W. R. and F. D. Tallman were joined as defendants because they were the owners of the lot in front of which the alleged defect existed. By the charter of the *247•defendant city, it has power to establish sidewalks and determine their width and character and the manner and method of construction. It is made the duty of each lot owner to construct such walk in front of his property in accordance with such determination, and to keep the same in repair; and on failure so to do, after due notice as provided in the charter, the municipality is authorized to perform the work at such lot owner’s…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Toutloff v. City of Green BayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by9 opinions
- Brown v. Milwaukee Terminal Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Hay v. City of BarabooWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Hanley v. Fireproof Building Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1922
- City of Lincoln v. JaneschNebraska Supreme Court · 1902
- Griswold v. CampWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.